Is the issue of how to treat the dead body separate from the question of killing the man? Note the assertion that the treatment of the body is something that you do to the living. But why show respect to the people who are devoted to someone you marked for execution? And yet we did show respect for the body. Omar bin Laden's argument can only be that we botched our attempt at showing respect. I think he's using Alinsky rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

"This is why it won't matter if the photos are released. No matter what is done, they will bitch and moan about it."

No, it's been proven that good evidence convinces more people than hiding good evidence does. Check our a poll on birthers. Obama finally releasing his long form actually convinced most people he was born in Hawaii, after all. Sure, there's some holdouts, but they are actually fringe now. Either Obama is an idiot, or he wanted the birther movement to exist for some idiotic reason (Ok, then, I guess he's an idiot).

"Someone should ask these yahoos where were their complaints about the disposal of the remains of those who died on 911."

That's my reaction too. Osama Bin Laden killed a lot of people all over the world, too, so truther reactions don't work. This is a stone cold murderer who hid like a little coward for years while he let other people fight his battles against innocent children and unarmed adults.

so which is it? The son thinks the old man is alive (yesterday's statement) or complains about his funeral: I Omar Ossama Binladin and my brothers the lawful children and heirs of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead.

Note that only OBLs sons seem to have any rights here. and though the families females saw him die, that issue seems open. Note that in Sharia, testimony of women isn't trusted :)

Wow, my sympathy meter seems to be busted. It's not moving at all. Must be all of those falling bodies from the Twin Towers that landed on it on 9/11. It's never registered any sympathy for any Muslims since then.

Here's a little song for Omar Bin Laden and any other Muslim who's bent out of shape about Osama's demise (WARNING: NSFW!):

This is why it won't matter if the photos are released. No matter what is done, they will bitch and moan about it.

That’s not why the photos (or video confirming the kill) should be released. The reason they should be released is we have in the past shown pictures confirming high profile kills and not doing so (for fear of enraging our enemies) now projects weakness in a part of the world where they respect strength.

Also as we saw when we released Uday and Kussay showing visual confirmation that they were in fact dead may have the effect of bolstering morale among some of the “moderate” Muslims (the real ones, not the jihad apologists) by giving them closure that this POS is in fact dead.

I'm very sorry that your father committed acts that necessitated the actions that resulted in his death. My sincere personal condolences for your loss, accompanied by my congratulations to our Navy SEALS who meted out his deserved justice.

Is the issue of how to treat the dead body separate from the question of killing the man?

It is in mythology.

I bring you a message sent by Zeus:he says the gods are angry with you nowand he is rising over them all in deathless wraththat you in heartsick fury still hold Hector's body,here by your beaked ships, and will not give him back.O give him back at once -- take ransom for the dead!

The son is honoring his father who dedicated his life to killing infidels in honor of allah. Don't you get it? Infidels are despised subhumans targeted by the honorable BinLaden family for ritual murder, and that is hard work. Osama is the Arab's Billy Graham. What could be more honorable than that? The UN is passing a world law that religion cannot be disrespected, and to Muslims there is only one religion that applies to.

He most likely is correct on the trail of intel. I think he's wrong on waterboarding, but respect his understanding of the issue and the source of his position, which unlike most of Washington, isn't based on posturing for political advantage.

""We hold the American President (Barack) Obama legally responsible to clarify the fate of our father, Osama bin Laden...""

How's this for clarification: we send a sub with cameras (like the one that found the Titanic) down to the body and provide a live feed to the internet of Osama's decaying corpse. Then the whole world can watch in real time as Osama rots. You can't make his fate much clearer than that.

@franglo -- I have always admired McCain's stance on enhanced interrogation ... and his continued support for the GWOT despite his reservations. I believe he was right on both counts.

Given that McCain doesn't denounce anyone in your linked article, but rather provides some carefully filtered facts, I suggest that you apply for a job as a headline writer for The New York Times. You've got the tropes down.

The utilitarian argument that torture is wrong because it is ineffective is craven. Torture would still be wrong even it were completely effective.

Chopping peoples heads off with an axe effectively kills them, but even eighteenth-century Frenchman found that barbaric. Sometimes it took several hacks. That's why they adopted the guillotine.

As McCain points out, "much of this debate is a definitional one." One can argue that torture is illegitimate by definition while disputing what kinds of interrogation go too far. I happen to agree with McCain that waterboarding goes too far, but there are counterarguments (yes, everyone, I know them).

Now, note what McCain explicitly condones:

The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured...

A secret CIA prison in a foreign country. You good with that? What line between interrogation and torture do you think was observed in that case?

This is not a commentary on whether dead Osama rates any type of respect, but I do have questions about this action.

I haven't quite been able to articulate it yet, but the burial at sea seems so strange to me. Has this ever happened in the past? Do we normally confiscate the dead bodies of our targets? And if so, what is the usual mode of disposal? Do we provide services upon the interring of the body? Do we give it back to the family?

At first, the argument about preventing a shrine seemed good, but as mentioned in previous posts, would it really have been such a bad idea?

Perhaps this was the best choice of many poor options, but it's still weird.

Who is the audience for the interview (published by Reuters)? You need to know who the audience is to decide whether the tactics (Alinsky's Rule 4 for instance) make sense.

Accepting Ann's premise that the tactics are following Alinsky's Rule 4 (it highlights hypocrisy mostly), the logical conclusion is that a Western audience is his target -- saying one thing and doing another not being all that remarkable in the Middle East, any more than killing (rather than prosecuting) one's enemies is in that culture. If it's a Western audience, it seems to be backfiring badly, although I'm not sure how it's playing in the European press. It may well be that whoever is behind this misbegotten PR move by OBL's sons was the secret genius who ran the Dukakis campaign.

Given this reaction, can we honestly say that if we had wrapped OBL in bacon and buried him (after he was executed) on a military base in the Indian Ocean, that the reaction would be any different?Except for the objection of wasting good bacon.

Franglo said John McCain denounces Republican lie that torture led to the capture of Bin Laden.

I never understood this tactic of using the words of your political opposition, someone who you would normally dismiss with a whole variety of critiques, to justify your position.

Its called fanaticism meets desperation. Some of these hard core Lefties can't stand the idea Little Zero's raid was a success due to waterboarding (not to mention Reagan's expansion of Spec Ops, post-Grenada), so they'll take anybody who they think denounces it.

You'll get kicked if you camp the enemy's spawn. That being said, I would love for an American president, in the aftermath of a successful terrorist loci purge, to come on national TV and declare that all their base are belong to us.

I am good to go on torture and the rest on illegitimate combatants. Do whatever is necessary to get the scum to talk and when are of no further use summarily execute them.

As for OBL, in retrospect Barry screwed up. Should have brought the bastard back, tortured and interrogated the crap out him and then hung him on a meat hook at ground zero. Afterwards have his carcass fed to wild boars live on TV and shipped the boar excrement to his sons.

Omar needs to learn something about Americans--most of us knew little about Islam ten years ago, and had no strong opinion about it.

I tried to be fair after 9/11. Really, I did. Drank the whole "religion of peace, just a small number of fanatics" Kool-Aid and everything.

But it's been nearly ten years, and you know what? These...words fail me...people haven't even tried to correct that bad first impression. A few years ago I started thinking that Allah is really Satan, and was appalled at myself; now I'm seeing other people make that point without even flinching.

Keep it up, terrorist idiots. When you've convinced most Americans that we can't ever live in peace with you, the war will be over in about an hour and a half.

Omar needs to learn something about Americans--most of us knew little about Islam ten years ago, and had no strong opinion about it.

I tried to be fair after 9/11. Really, I did. Drank the whole "religion of peace, just a small number of fanatics" Kool-Aid and everything.

But it's been nearly ten years, and you know what? These...words fail me...people haven't even tried to correct that bad first impression. A few years ago I started thinking that Allah is really Satan, and was appalled at myself; now I'm seeing other people make that point without even flinching.

Keep it up, terrorist idiots. When you've convinced most Americans that we can't ever live in peace with you, the war will be over in about an hour and a half.

BTW, did you read the section (at the toy manufacturer's site) that has comments?

"What an insult to true American people and the Navy Seals. I know you're doing this as a desperate move to conjure business, however, what a disgrace you idiots are!The Seals deserve better than that...I grew up in inner city Chicago...you don't rise through the political ranks by being a choir boy; in other words, you morons, all politicians are extremely corrupt. odumba didn't know the minister of the church he went to for over 20 years hated America, Jews, and Israel...and you're idolizing this prick!You desperate fools!

Are you flipping kidding me.....Obama as a Navy Seal....what a slap in the face to our military and the American people. If you want to celebrate bin Laden getting killed, use a military face, the face of the real hero's.

DonnaYou ought to be ashamed of yourself for creating the Navy SEAL action figure depicting the President (which never served in any branch of the US Military) as a Navy SEAL and for trying to profit from it!

Upon graduation from high school (2 years ago) my Grandson Justin enlisted in the US Marines with hopes of being selected for RECON. He was and he has been in Japan for almost a year going through intense training with the Navy Seals with hopes of one day utilizing his skills to protect our freedom and defend the nation he loves.

I think that it is horrendous that you are actually exploiting this great organization for profit!

Now that you have already launched "the doll" (I just can't force myself to call it an action figure) the least you could do is donate the profits you receive from it and pass it on to the families of killed and wounded soilders.

It's because of soldiers like Justin that I get the opportunity to speak my mind and share my frustrations and disappointment.

pbandj wrote Has BHO ever said that he would shut down extraordinary rendition? I don't recall that he did.

Well, see, I didn't ask Obama what he thought about extraordinary rendition. I asked franglo.

What do you think?

* * *

@cubanbob - We've debated this question into the ground before. I happen to agree with McCain. I think there are cases where we maintain a standard of civilized behavior for no other reason than that we are civilized.

Where I depart strongly from the typical complaint squad is acknowledging that the envelope of civilized behavior expands dramatically in a war against terrorists who don't observe the rules of war in return. Guantanamo, military tribunals, battlefield interrogations -- all justified given the nature of the enemy.

But many things are not justified.

Torture? no.Intentional targeting of innocents? No.Denial of constitutional rights to U.S. citizens? No.

That's my opinion. I can argue each point, but for almost all of them there's a point where the argument turns on the ethics rather than outcomes and in those areas we may never agree.

What Obama is up to next maybe what has the Bin Laden boys in a dither. Obama says that he will leave the fighting in Libya to NATO, unless the US has a special capability...like Seal Teams arriving by stealth Blackhawks and killing the Muslim leaders that have defied Sheik Obama.

It is using the oppositions rules against it, and this should be done towards Obama and the dems, not just by Osama's son, but also by the right. As far as Osama's son is concerned, I"m not surprised at his talking points. Because he is a lefty, well schooled in the lefty talking points. Yes Osama was also a terrorrist, but notice how quick he adopted the anti american screeds of the left (including even diatribes for environmentalism) and at it's core the lefty movement is anti amerikkkan. This is why you so often had terrorists uttering the same talking points and why the left seemed to be so sympatico with tyrants and terrorists.But the right, or those who are anti the anti war crowd need to hold them accountable for their rhetoric. If what Bush did was so bad, where are all the screeching voice now that Obama has continued the policies that were supposedly shredding of the constitution.They were clearly using rule 4 against Bush and the neo cons and now it's time for the shoe to be on the other foot.

I love how all the handwringing is just the result of our choosing to go in with guns. Would anyone be talking about legality or proper burials if we had just plastered the compound with bombs as had been originally proposed?

Does anyone give a second thought to these questions when we use drones to obliterate jihadists in Pakistan's tribal areas? No. But we shoot a guy in the face and suddenly it's "Oh my god, was it a lawful killing? Did we bury him correctly?" Totally pointless questions, angels on the head of pin.

pbandj asked:Has BHO ever said that he would shut down extraordinary rendition? I don't recall that he did.

"From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."and

"This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” “That will be my position as president. That includes renditions.”

Er, ah, er,ah.... maybe Obama can get away on a technicality in that he isn't shipping people away in the DEAD OF NIGHT. Maybe he's doing it in the early morn or mid afternoon?But clearly,he said he would end the policy of renditions. What I want to know from pbandj is, considering the amount of venom directed at Bush for carrying out renditions, why would he assume that Obama wouldn't be agaisnt renditions? And if I didn't provide the quote from Obama that shows in fact he did speak about it, would pbandj use the fact that he didn't speak about it to not hold him accountable for carrying said policies out? What a hypocrite you are pbandj.

It is using the oppositions rules against it, and this should be done towards Obama and the dems, not just by Osama's son, but also by the right."

We do this by highlighting Obama's and liberal hypocrisy generally. Attacking his hypocrisy doesn't damage America as does asserting this was a war crime.

Democrats hurt America when they attacked Bush. Some reluctantly because damaging Bush was important enough to them that damaging America was acceptable collateral damage, for others it was a two for one party.

Blue@9 wrote: love how all the handwringing is just the result of our choosing to go in with guns. Would anyone be talking about legality or proper burials if we had just plastered the compound with bombs as had been originally proposed?

Does anyone give a second thought to these questions when we use drones to obliterate jihadists in Pakistan's tribal areas? No. But we shoot a guy in the face and suddenly it's "Oh my god, was it a lawful killing? Did we bury him correctly?" Totally pointless questions, angels on the head of pin.

Actually a lot of people ALSO had problems with us using drone attacks, including Barack Obama and the other lefties. The distinction being, when Bush was doing it it was REALLY wrong. Now that Obama is doing it, not so much.

Some may understandably not care for this but we can bring the Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament to bear on this discussion.

In Amos 2:1 Yhwh declares his wrath against Moab because they burned to ash/lime the bones of the king of Edom. All of Amos 1-2 suggests the notion of universal moral principles that even people without Torah should know and follow. (Insert Noachic covenant.)

Here the principle that even non-Hebraic/Jewish people should know is "don't desecrate a dead body even the body of an enemy".

In Lone Wolf and Cub graphic novel series Itto Ogami kills two Yagyu assassins after they attack him. Ogami then performs the normal Japanese/Buddhist funerary rites for them. They may be enemies but still he shows minimal respect for the dead.

There are counterexamples. Consider 2 Kings 9 where Queen Jezebel is thrown down and her body eaten by dogs. Although Jehu *does* later say "go bury her because she was a king's daughter". Here we have the classic problem of distinguishing between what Torah (or Nviim) endorses and what it merely describes.

Where does that leave us? Perhaps with a general principle that yes we should show some minimal respect for the dead even a dead enemy.

But could it also be that there are some who are not merely "my/our" enemy but enemies of all humanity? such that they forfeit even minimal courtesy to the dead?

"would pbandj use the fact that he didn't speak about it to not hold him accountable for carrying said policies out? "

Well, to be fair, did anyone vote for Obama based on his policy positions? Obama sold good feelings, and good feelings tends to get votes. We just have to pray that we get good governance along with the good feelings (e.g. Reagan).

Marshal wrote:It is using the oppositions rules against it, and this should be done towards Obama and the dems, not just by Osama's son, but also by the right."

We do this by highlighting Obama's and liberal hypocrisy generally. Attacking his hypocrisy doesn't damage America as does asserting this was a war crime.

Hightlighting the hypocricy of the left is holding them account for their own rules. Clearly, according to their own logic they would be against extra judicial assassinations (and in fact Olbermann had a nice segment on his show where he accused Bush of such) so then wouldn't they have to hold Obama accountable for war crimes? So where is all the outrage. Note, that is not ME holding Obama accountable for war crimes, that is me asking why aren't they? My issue has nothing at all to do with Obama's actions. The attack is on the left. And this is something that conservatives need to do against libs. HARD. And if you don't have the stomach for it, then get out of the way. Don't say were better than that. I know that already. But I'm not going to put up with hypocritical blood libel agaisnt our side to get a democrat in the office. It worked pretty well when the dems used said attacks against Bush. I want them held to account for their rhetoric which means RUBBING THEIR NOSES IN IT.

Scott M wrote:Anyone remember direct questions in the primary and presidential debates regarding whether or not the candidate would authorize military operations in Pakistan if it turned out OBL was there?

Even if that were true, are you now arguing the unitary executive powers of the presidency that the libs railed against? Because whether a president said he would do something doesn't necessarily mean that that's all that's required. Bush supposedly set up assassination squads in Iran and Pakistan and started carrying out targeted hits. Why wouldn't the fact that Bush simply carried out said operation be enough? Bush authorized waterboarding in rare cases. So then, since he authorized it and said to do it, isnt' it ok that it was done?

"Actually a lot of people ALSO had problems with us using drone attacks, including Barack Obama and the other lefties. The distinction being, when Bush was doing it it was REALLY wrong. Now that Obama is doing it, not so much."

True.

But my general philosophy is: Why complain when your opponents start to agree with you?

Note that Obama's nominee for Deputy AG, James Cole, was shot down by the Senate and the admin just let it slide. Cole was a fierce proponent of the argument that the fight against terrorism is a law-enforcement matter.

The Admin has just adopted all of Cheney's, Bolton's, and Yoo's arguments: This is a military conflict, a war. And of course they had to -- they just shot OBL in the face! Hard to justify that on law-enforcement grounds.

So yeah, I'm not complaining. Even the hypocrisy charge--more useful for politics than actual policy. We won on policy, that's all I care about.

To add to this, the only people on the other side now are Michael Moore and the Bin Laden family. Glenn Greenwald too, but I can at least respect that he's got integrity.

The time to raise the hypocrisy charge isn't *now*, but later during the election when the Dems start trying to trot out their foreign policy "we're tough too!" bs. That's when we open up with both barrels.

"...there's a point where the argument turns on the ethics rather than outcomes..."

Like the ethics of letting thousands of innocents die so you can claim yourself ethically superior. I find that not only unethical, but immoral, foolish and suicidal. It's pathetic and narcissistic that someone would find that letting innocents die is superior to water boarding in their name - an act people voluntarily submit to on a daily basis without harm. I suspect that if information could be extracted by tickling, that the same people would find it objectionable and unethical. If not, what's the the difference?

"Clearly, according to their own logic they would be against extra judicial assassinations (and in fact Olbermann had a nice segment on his show where he accused Bush of such) so then wouldn't they have to hold Obama accountable for war crimes?"

This proves their earlier assertions about Bush's war crimes were 100% driven by partisanship. But this isn't a war crime and we shouldn't include our voices with those calling it such.

Calls of hypocrisy aren't meaningful now. They don't mean anything to most Americans cheering Bin Laden's death. But the next time the left starts pulling a Cook we remind them exactly how disgusting those thoughts are.

In your quotes, BHO said he would NOT use these renditions so that we could torture people. He didn't say we wouldn't use renditions when torture isn't involved.

Good god your putz-itude is laughable. Seriously? Why don't you go read Greenwald and see what an actual progressive with integrity thinks of your weaseling. Obama has pretty much adopted Bush's war on terror and then turned it up to 11. Even Bush didn't reserve the right to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil. John Yoo should be appointed the next AG.

Boo, hoo, hoo bin-Ladens. Personally I like the idea of ObL getting a double tap through the skull and then being dumped in the sea. I hope eels, crabs and all the other bottom feeders are feasting on his corpse right this moment. Rot in peace, you piece of sh*t.

Oba.., ob-serving the hypocritesAs they would mingle with the good people we meetGood friends we have had, oh good friends we've lost along the wayIn this bright future you can't forget your pastSo dry your tears I say

Marshall wrote:This proves their earlier assertions about Bush's war crimes were 100% driven by partisanship. But this isn't a war crime and we shouldn't include our voices with those calling it such.

Calls of hypocrisy aren't meaningful now. They don't mean anything to most Americans cheering Bin Laden's death. But the next time the left starts pulling a Cook we remind them exactly how disgusting those thoughts are.

Only if you forget all about it now, they'll forget about it now and also forget about it later. Or we'll forget about it later. The only difference between your stance is that I'm reminding them exactly how disgusting those thoughts are NOW, and not waiting for it to slip down the memory hole.I remmeber this exact same thing happened during the Iraq debacle. Under Clinton all the primary dems (save Kucinic) were declaring with certainty that Iraq had WMD's and even went so far as to agree with Clinton and pass the ILA. As soon as Bush took office and war became more and more imminent, the whole history (and to call it history is very kind, it literally happened only a few years prior) slipped down the memory hole.Even though some repubs put up websites that showed all the quotes that had the dems suggesting the same things, it didn't matter to the vast majority of dems or libs. I'm not going to let it slip into history for them to forget, and neither should any self respecting republican warmonger. That's not to say that I will stand against Obama carrying out Bush's anti terrorism policies. But I'm certainly going to hold libs and dems feet to the fire where I can to point out their hypocricy. It is imperative that we make them live up to their rules, just as they make us live up to ours.

Blue@9 wrote:Good god your putz-itude is laughable. Seriously? Why don't you go read Greenwald and see what an actual progressive with integrity thinks of your weaseling. Obama has pretty much adopted Bush's war on terror and then turned it up to 11. Even Bush didn't reserve the right to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil. John Yoo should be appointed the next AG

And this is why I will make them live by their rules. Notice pbandj looking for all the loopholes. "He said he woudln't carry out renditions in the dead of night, but we're doing them in the break of day, so it's different". Anything to not have to answer to his sides rhetoric. If you don't shove his own words down his throat (make him live up to his rules) he and the other hypocrites get to have their cake and eat it too, and continue with the self serving blood libel while supporting the self same policies when done by their guy. I'm not going to let them get away with it and neither should you. Defending ant terror policies might also mean villanizing (rightly) those who used said policies as a means to get their guy in office). You mention John Yoo. Think of all the shit he took from these retards, over policies that apparently they were ok with all along. The best way to deal with liars is to throw the lies back into their own faces and make them eat it. That's what you're doing, by calling pb&j a liar and frankly that's what making them live by their rules does.

The only difference between your stance is that I'm reminding them exactly how disgusting those thoughts are NOW, and not waiting for it to slip down the memory hole.I remmeber this exact same thing happened during the Iraq debacle.

Don't worry, man, we've got Youtube now. And the Right is considerably more sophisticated in the use of new media than it was just two years ago.

Stack the ammo, but let's not start shooting before the battle's really even begun.

Blue@9 wrote:Good god your putz-itude is laughable. Seriously? Why don't you go read Greenwald and see what an actual progressive with integrity thinks of your weaseling. Obama has pretty much adopted Bush's war on terror and then turned it up to 11. Even Bush didn't reserve the right to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil. John Yoo should be appointed the next AG

And this is why I will make them live by their rules. Notice pbandj looking for all the loopholes. "He said he woudln't carry out renditions in the dead of night, but we're doing them in the break of day, so it's different". Anything to not have to answer to his sides rhetoric. If you don't shove his own words down his throat (make him live up to his rules) he and the other hypocrites get to have their cake and eat it too, and continue with the self serving blood libel while supporting the self same policies when done by their guy. I'm not going to let them get away with it and neither should you. Defending ant terror policies might also mean villanizing (rightly) those who used said policies as a means to get their guy in office). You mention John Yoo. Think of all the shit he took from these retards, over policies that apparently they were ok with all along. The best way to deal with liars is to throw the lies back into their own faces and make them eat it. That's what you're doing, by calling pb&j a liar and frankly that's what making them live by their rules does.

Oba.., ob-serving the hypocritesAs they would mingle with the good people we meetGood friends we have had, oh good friends we've lost along the wayIn this bright future you can't forget your pastSo dry your tears I say

"IT would be in keeping with Obama's tendency to hire former Bush appointees."

Well, they and the Clinton people are the only ones who know what they're doing: Clinton, Panetta, Donilon, Gates, Petraeus. Who's on Team Obama, Holder? Samantha Power? Jay Carney? Someone should write a cartoon about how laughable this admin has been. Awesome campaign, awesome fundraising, adolescent governance.

Democrats and so called liberals whose faces you want to rub in their hypocrisy are not the audience. It's a complete waste of time to even literally rub their noses in shit. They don't care. They know they are hypocrites. Even the ones who have consistently supported the policy Obama now embraces were perfectly happy to watch their brethren demonize that policy and America because it helped them win.

We want to win independents and people whose political awareness is just forming. If this group sees us saying this is a war crime they will conclude we are doing the same thing Democrats did. So I'm distinguishing between accusing so called liberals of hypocrisy and asserting this is a war crime even in the context of proving hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy can be proven merely by showing policy A was attacked and then embraced. But we also need to be clear that policy B was correct all along as everyone but the nuts now agrees. Only this last has a meaningful impact. So the next cycle we need to be asking "If the only reason to vote Democratic is that you think he's lying you might as well vote for the Republican".

"Vote Democrat and Trust That I'm Lying to You" may be a winning message for Meade, but I suspect it's a smallish voting bloc.

Oh, is that still true? Or is it only when on US soil? What about when it's at Bagram?

What about assassinations of American citizens without due process? What about warrantless wiretaps? Or indefinite detention in Gitmo? Or military tribunals? Or committing more troops to a losing battlefield? Or shooting OBL in the face without trial?

The Left used to be against all these things, so tell us what non-technicality-laced drivel you have to explain it away?

He never said he was against killing terrorists overseas, there was no exception for American terrorists. He always indicated that killing terrorists, wherever they may be, would be a priority.

He has completely abandoned his promise to place more restrictions on wire taps.

He hugely reversed himself re Gimo.

He promised to spend more effort in Afghanistan, while withdrawing from Iraq. This shouldn't have been a surprise.

He explicitly promised to do what he did re OBL.

Much of the left still is against these things, including the ones BHO told them he was going to do.

I'm personally pleased w/ the outcomes in all of these situations.

I would only be happier if I new w/ certitude that the BHO administration would break the law and torture someone in the unlikely situation where doing so could prevent an imminent attack. But, even then I don't want to have a policy of torture, I want it to be illegal.

I think it's too hard to legally limit when torture can and cannot be used. And I think it'd be bad if an administration knew that it could legally torture as long as they said it was important to do so to protect the country--too much power, slippery slope.

"It wasn't torture until the Lefties needed a political expedient."

What wasn't torture? BHO is specifically using the word torture. So, obviously he's saying that he wouldn't use rendition to torture. Which is precisely what he's done.